plan-tests

Plan Tests

Quick Reference

Change type	First spec	Path	Why
API contract, params, status code, JSON shape	Request spec	spec/requests/	Proves the real HTTP contract
Domain rule on a cohesive record or value object	Model spec	spec/models/	Fast feedback on domain behavior
Multi-step orchestration across collaborators	Service spec	spec/services/	Focuses on the workflow boundary
Enqueue/run/retry/discard behavior	Job spec	spec/jobs/	Captures async semantics directly
Critical Turbo/Stimulus or browser-visible flow	System spec	spec/system/	Use only when browser interaction is the real risk
Engine routing, generators, host integration	Engine spec	spec/requests/ or engine path	Normal app specs miss engine wiring — see test-engine
Bug fix	Reproduction spec	Where the bug is observed	Proves the fix and prevents regression

HARD-GATE

CHECKPOINT: Test Design Review

1. Present: Show the failing spec(s) written
2. Ask:
   • Does this test cover the right behavior?
   • Is the boundary correct (request vs service vs model)?
   • Are the most important edge cases represented?
   • Is the failure reason correct (feature missing, not setup error)?
3. Confirm: Proceed after the test design meets the accepted requirements and RED is observed.

## Core Process

Start at the highest-value boundary that proves the behavior with the least unnecessary setup.

### Steps

1. **Name the behavior:** State the user-visible outcome or invariant to prove.
2. **Locate the boundary:** Decide where the behavior is observed first — HTTP request, service entry point, model rule, job execution, engine integration, or external adapter. Use the Quick Reference table to map the change type to the right spec type.
3. **Write one failing example:** Keep it minimal; one example is enough to open the gate. List additional cases as follow-up coverage.
4. **Suggest the path:** Name the likely spec path using normal Rails conventions (e.g. `spec/requests/...`, `spec/services/...`, `spec/jobs/...`, `spec/models/...`).
5. **Run and validate:** Confirm the failure is because the behavior is missing, not because the setup is broken.
6. **Hand off:** Continue with the skill that fits the slice — [`write-tests`](../write-tests/SKILL.md) for general spec writing, [`test-service`](../test-service/SKILL.md) for service-layer coverage, or [`test-engine`](../test-engine/SKILL.md) for engine integration.

### Examples

#### Good: New JSON Endpoint

```ruby
# Behavior: POST /orders validates params and returns 201 with JSON payload
# First slice: request spec
# Suggested path: spec/requests/orders/create_spec.rb

RSpec.describe "POST /orders", type: :request do
  let(:user) { create(:user) }
  let(:valid_params) { { order: { product_id: create(:product).id, quantity: 1 } } }

  before { sign_in user }

  it "creates an order and returns 201" do
    post orders_path, params: valid_params, as: :json
    expect(response).to have_http_status(:created)
    expect(response.parsed_body["id"]).to be_present
  end
end

Good: New Orchestration Service

# Behavior: Orders::CreateOrder validates inventory, persists, and enqueues follow-up work
# First slice: service spec
# Suggested path: spec/services/orders/create_order_spec.rb

RSpec.describe Orders::CreateOrder do
  subject(:result) { described_class.call(user: user, product: product, quantity: 1) }

  let(:user)    { create(:user) }
  let(:product) { create(:product, stock: 5) }

  it "returns a successful result with the new order" do
    expect(result).to be_success
    expect(result.order).to be_persisted
  end
end

Pitfalls

Pitfall	What to do
Starting with a PORO spec because it is easy	Easy ≠ high-signal — choose the boundary that proves the real behavior
Writing three spec types before running any	Pick one slice, run it, prove the failure, then proceed
Defaulting to one spec type for everything	Match the spec type to the layer where the real risk lives (HTTP, domain, async, browser)
Jumping to system specs too early	Reserve for critical browser flows that lower layers cannot prove

Extended Resources (Progressive Disclosure)

Load these files only when their specific content is needed:

• assets/first_slice_template.md — Use when documenting the test plan; provides a structured template for behavior, boundary decision, opening gate spec, and follow-up coverage

Output Style

When completing test planning, produce a brief structured summary and populate the full plan using assets/first_slice_template.md. The summary must cover:

• Behavior — user-visible outcome being proved
• First Slice — spec type, file path, and boundary rationale
• Opening Gate — expected RED failure message and confirmation that failure reason is "feature missing, not setup error"
• Follow-up Coverage — bulleted list of additional cases deferred from the initial gate
• Design Checkpoint — confirmation that behavior, boundary, edge cases, and failure reason are all validated